Mythology

Does anyone think it's odd that all of the followers of the great mythologies (Greek, Roman, Norse, Egyptian, ect...) gave up their beliefs in these stories that they've been raised to believe in, but we still cling so tightly to Hebrew Mythology? These stories that we have from the Bible, -The Flood, Creation, The Tower of Babel, The Gospel- they basically are all just mythological stories that we have no evidence for except for the Bible itself. If someone found some ancient texts telling the story of Zues, we wouldn't cannonize it and reistate the ancient Greek religions. Why then do we put so much stock in the Bible and its' stories?

Oh, and just so no one gets all jumpy, I'm not trying to start a fight here. I believe in a good 90% of the Bible, I'm just trying to figure out why.

I've often wondered the same thing, Kik. I don't think I know enough about it, though, to offer an opinion of why this might be.

Hi—I’m new here, pleased to meet you guys. Interesting question. Perhaps one reason for the survival of Christianity is its “benevolent” god—he’s portrayed as a compassionate deity, guiding and watching over his followers. In contrast, the Greek gods were often indifferent or even meddlesome in the lives of humans. I suppose it’s simply more enticing to believe in a god whom we think will help us out.

P.S. Does my text show up in color? If so, I’m sorry and I’ll try to fix it.

Well the Hebrew mythological God wasn't actually all that benevolent. Through the NT we learn to see a more compassionate God, but old school God had the earth swallow people, had whole nations first born's die, made his "chosen people" wander in the wilderness for 40 years and all die out before any of the original wanderers made it to the "promised land". He also meddled quite a bit in the lives of humans I'd say: Destroying EVERYONE in a great flood, confusing everyone's langueges at Babel so they would spread out, raining fire on a city because they were perverted and immoral, having a guy swollowed by a great fish and spit out where he wanted him to work, impregnating a 14 year old girl with the savior of the human race, sounds a bit meddlesome to me.

If you compare them, he really doesn't seem that different from any other mythological God.

I hope that someone who is religious, and has more faith than me will answer this. I'm really not trying to pick a fight.

Right, but I think today the emphasis is Christianity is on Jesus—a loving, forgiving, self-sacrificing god.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by IWilKikU
Does anyone think it's odd that all of the followers of the great mythologies (Greek, Roman, Norse, Egyptian, ect...) gave up their beliefs in these stories that they've been raised to believe in, but we still cling so tightly to Hebrew Mythology? These stories that we have from the Bible, -The Flood, Creation, The Tower of Babel, The Gospel- they basically are all just mythological stories that we have no evidence for except for the Bible itself. If someone found some ancient texts telling the story of Zues, we wouldn't cannonize it and reistate the ancient Greek religions. Why then do we put so much stock in the Bible and its' stories?

---

It's a reasonable question, and Wilde has already made some good points. The greek gods were hardly gods at all, if by "gods" we understand superior beings in all manners. They had the same emotions and miseries of humans, they just happened to have powers, or more accurately, to be the expression of such powers, and that expression couldn't be made by anything else than a human portrait. Those kind of gods were needed at that moment in order to express what humanity felt like regarding existance. The ones who ceased to be needed disappeared.
The god of the old testament bears some resemblance to them, but the one in the new testament clearly opposes this view of god. The conclusion you suggest is not entirely misplaced, although I don't think that this is the case. Most of the world doesn't worship the christian god, they worship somehing else or they don't worship anything at all. Thing is, America is the bastion of this belief, so that's why you might feel that there is much "stock" in the bible, but considering a global view, I don't think this is accurate.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilde
Right, but I think today the emphasis is Christianity is on Jesus—a loving, forgiving, self-sacrificing god.

---

Yes, but I'm talking about the stories from the OT that have mythical proportions. I'm not talking about the emphasis of Christianity. Its just that these old Pentateuch stories sound like fairy tales to me. I'm trying to figure out what sets these stories apart from the likes of Jason and the Golden Fleace or Theseus and the Minotaur. They have the same elements of magic (although utilized by God rather than man), Gods, epic events... whats the difference and why hasn't society (ok, American society) as a whole rejected the OT on the same grounds that they've rejected Greek Mythology?

Crisaor, rather than looking at this issue on a geographical societal view, what about in the Christian church? There arn't still temples to the ancient Greek gods, so why is there still a HUGE church that worships the biblical God? What sets the Mythology that he originated in (literarily, not necesarilly literally) apart from the Mythos that contains the ancient Greek gods? Why was this one able to survive?

I think Crisaor has a point in the significance of Christianity in the matter. In fact, I think that's just it: had the Old Testament not been adopted as part of the Christian tradition, many of the tales probably would now be an obscure footnote to the history of Judaism. But along with the teachings of Christ, Christians continue to believe the old stories, simply because they are also in the Bible. I don't think it has as much to do with them having particular validity to people, as much as the fact that they are included in the Bible and have therefore survived as part of Christian tradition. Many Christians, and really all fundamentalists, seem to believe that rejecting any words written in the Bible is blasphemy.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by IWilKikU
Crisaor, rather than looking at this issue on a geographical societal view, what about in the Christian church? There arn't still temples to the ancient Greek gods, so why is there still a HUGE church that worships the biblical God? What sets the Mythology that he originated in (literarily, not necesarilly literally) apart from the Mythos that contains the ancient Greek gods? Why was this one able to survive?

---

First of all, though I believe that there aren't any temples dedicated to greek gods still around, some of them are still worshipped. You need only type their name on an engine search and you'll come across it. Now, regarding your question, I don't think I can provide you with a suitable answer in this few minutes I'm posting, nevertheless, I'll give it a shot.
One possible answer could be that the biblical god originally presented itself (if such term can be used) as the exact opposite of the pagan, politheist gods. We're talking about the one and true god, the creator, the all-knowing, not some human invention. He wasn't created by the human mind, but the other way round. In this view, he's clearly different (and thus, superior), to the others.
Another explanation could be that monetheism defines a single god as the source of all things, and this replaces some problematic issues related to a multi-god pantheon (since this kind of gods can only have a determinate portfolio, a limited area of influence, how can any of that beings be perceived as perfect?)
Yet another explanation is the one that the biblical god survived because he was tied with the fate of israel people. He was their god, their only god, their creator, protector, and benefactor. Their entire history is based on the cooperation between them and their god. Their survival is the survival of their god. There is no separation.
Last, but not least, it could simply be that this is THE God we're talking about. Maybe he really exists (and has all the attributes we associate to him), and that's why he's still around.
Note that any of this explanations, flawed or not, could be applied to any of the monotheist gods (Yahve, Allah, or the christian God). In fact, it's not uncommon to refer to these gods as a different aspect of the same being, thus adding more credit to his existance.
I hope that makes some sense. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by emily655321
I think Crisaor has a point in the significance of Christianity in the matter. In fact, I think that's just it: had the Old Testament not been adopted as part of the Christian tradition, many of the tales probably would now be an obscure footnote to the history of Judaism.

---

I'm not so sure of that, actually. Judaism is a pretty closed religion compared to the others. Their tradition is much stronger than that of christians or catholics. It's passed from father to son no matter what. It's a legacy. They consider it a part of their being, as opposed to the other groups, who just consider it a choice in life.

1) I agree, 2) however :D Yes, stories like the Exodus and the Covenant and others fundamental to the religion are passed down and studied by Rabbis and kids in school. But as far as stories like Noah, and Jonah, and even Adam and Eve to a lesser extent, not much attention is paid to them in Judaism. There are also books of the OT -- I forget which offhand -- which Jewish leaders decided to keep out of the Torah for the reason that they didn't believe they held relevence to the religion; Lilith, for example, is one that stayed out for good. But early Christians were just laymen who had enjoyed these stories passed down orally, and decided to include them in their own Bible. So many of the legends in the Bible either aren't considered very credible by Jewish scholars, or they were not originally included in holy texts at all.

I am still thinking about this question which I think is really interesting. I think that the point that Iwillkiku is making is being missed. Things like the flood and creation are included in other texts, but they have been disregarded while Christians continue to accept them in the bible. I have been reading some of the creation myths, mostly Eastern ones and they are too fantastical to be true. Their gods as Crisaor says are like super - men. The way that Creation is recorded in the bible is different. It describes creation and the way the heaven's and the earth are formed and doesnt refer to God himself as a personality, just as an entity that is doing the creating. He himself is not described - only his creation and the order in which he founded it.

I think the stories apart from the bible that describe the flood and there are I understand, many that record the same kind of thing happening and there is actually evidence of a flood in that area of Mesopotamia, confirm that it really did happen and like many newspaper reports or even photographs can give a slightly different picture, that this is what is happening here. Everything then was passed down by word of mouth and it would be easy for parts of the story to be changed while still illustrating the basic truth that there was a flood.

I think I would be described as Christian fundamentalist but my mind is not closed and I consider things in conjunction with the world as it is today, whilst still keeping faith in what I believe. Some Christians say that the world is only 3000 years old which I think is ridiculous because there is evidence to the contrary. A lot of christians also believe that the world was made in seven days. I believe that the world was made in seven days..but they were God's days and they could have been thousands of centuries long. I really enjoy questions like this posed here. I am thinking some more about this and don't have much time just now to write more

Miranda

That's true about the flood, Miranda. I've listened to scientists on TV giving theories about where a great flood may have taken place. I was referring more to the "two of each creature"/ark/top of the mountain part of the story. (Although I've also heard a theory proposing that the ark was a merchant ship specially designed for transporting livestock, already in use before the flood occurred.)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by emily655321
1) I agree, 2) however :D as far as stories like Noah, and Jonah, and even Adam and Eve to a lesser extent, not much attention is paid to them in Judaism. There are also books of the OT which Jewish leaders decided to keep out of the Torah for the reason that they didn't believe they held relevence to the religion. But early Christians were just laymen who had enjoyed these stories passed down orally, and decided to include them in their own Bible. So many of the legends in the Bible either aren't considered very credible by Jewish scholars, or they were not originally included in holy texts at all.

---

Agreed. :)

Emily is on the track closest to my train of thought. I'm talking more about these larger-than-life, fairytale sounding stories that the Bible has and that we worship. However all of you helped me figure out some sort of idea of an answer to my question. Thanks.

Despite what most people say, some of the stuff in the bible is merely symbolic. Maybe these fairytales that you mention are there for this kind of purposes?

First i want to ask you Mike, why u only questioned about the Bible? How bout the Qoran or the stories in Vedha or Beghavad Githa? Don't you considered them as myth too?

As far as I know, Zeus, though he's the leader among other gods, he's not really that powerfull. Each god has his/her own responsibility and authority to certain job, like Cupid is the god of love, and there's his mother and Ares the god of war etc. So to some extent Zeus doesnt really controlled everything in this universe and sometimes he even has to follow other god's will.

But God in the bible is different, he controls everything, no other parties can determine what he shall/must do..even if he's doing something which is considered as pitiless, like giving a flood, destroyed a city with thousands of people in it etc.
Personally I dont want to respect a god like Zeus..I mean by eating Ambrosia I could be a god too.

And i think the first believers also give significant contributions to the acceptance of the bible as truth than merely as mythology. How the early christians fought for their faith..they were being chased, killed, tortured. Somehow this became a testimony for the next generations, I mean if the bible and all the stories about god in it is only some sort of myth..these people must be so darn silly for sacrificing their lifes like that. And it's also the same with Qoran
Have you ever heard in the Greek mythology about people who willingly sacrifice their lives for Zeus or Ares?

Sub, I think you misunderstand my question in the same way that the others did at first. I wasn't talking about the character of God and why HE has remained while others hadn't. I was refering to the seemingly tall tales in the Bible.

I didn't ask about other holy texts because I don't know them AT ALL. I havn't even heard basic stories from them or anything. I'm totally 100% ignorant of these other religious texts. Sorry :(.

Just because people are willing to die for somthing doesn't make it true.

Actually Sub Zeus' will is never controlled by anyone other than himself, the Greeks are very specific about this, he is the largest most powerful god, and being the oldest that makes him the powerfullest. The only arguable instance where that may not be the case is with Aphrodite (who may be older than him and therfore more powerful, but her parentage is arguable) infecting him with the passion of desire and making him turn into a bull and entice the wife of King Minos into making love with him and producing the Minotaur. Really i don't think that Greek mythology can be compared to the Bibile, becuase the the greeks had no concept of religion, in comparison to what we define as religion.

And eating ambrosia doesn't make you a god it makes you immortal, there is also agelessness which the gods have, something ambrosia doesn't give.

I have been thinking a lot and have come to the conclusion that these myths endure because there is truth within them. Falsehoods tend to fade away because they have no real substance whereas truth has a way of surviving and kind of standing out from the crowd. Many Christians accept the ‘myths’ incorporated in the bible as actual events. Other Christians believe them to be allegorical stories but all I think accept them as containing truth I think that they continue to be believed because as Crisaor touched on - they are true or contain the truth.


Adam and Eve may or not be a true story of how humanity began (but I believe that it is) and it had surely to begin somewhere with one man and one woman coming together, so why not in Eden? The story of Adam and Eve explains God’s plan - His reason for creating humanity and the reason why there is evil in the world and why it affects us to such detriment. It is linked directly to God’s redeeming love in making a way for humanity to be restored back into communion with Himself – which is the way He meant it to be in the first place. I don’t know if other religions answer these questions in this way – but it is one reason why the creation story of Adam and Eve persists – it explains our existence and our purpose for being here.

The tower of Babel isn’t complete myth because this place really existed – and the aim of the men of that place was to attempt to climb up to where God is. Mankind I think is still trying to intrude on God’s province. There was obviously no way that these men could ever build a tower that could reach up heaven, but it was their aim which is the crux of the matter – and mankind hasn’t changed. Science is now in the process of creating clones and before too long will be looking to actually create life – which is God’s province and although it may seem fantastical to some, I believe that the destruction of the tower of Babel may be allegorical to the time of the return of Christ – as humanity tries to climb up to where God is..and do the things that he is solely responsible for. God destroyed the tower..and scattered the men over the earth, confusing their language to make knowledge less easy for them to pass from one place to another. But language is universal now and no longer a barrier, and there are few constraints upon increasing knowledge. So the ’myth’ of the tower of Babel contains not only truths about mankind and his ambition – but relates to the future too and so has not lost it’s relevance to Christians today. Another reason I think, why this story is still accepted and believed.

I think most of the ‘myths’ in the bible are like this - they endure because they contain an essential truth that remains relevant through the ages and the truth is changeless. But myths’ and legends and gods of other times and religions, as Crisaor says relate to ‘supermen’ and gods that are too much like ourselves. The God of the Bible is completely different to any other, because it’s against His law to make any graven image or bow down to it, or to sacrifice to idols. The nations surrounding Israel did all these things, including sacrificing their children to Molech. Those nations also all had Kings who were their leaders. The nation of Israel was different because they were led by prophets and priests who sought God’s will although this changed in the time of Samuel. These things make the Jewish nation a people of faith and the bible is their history book. Whilst most other religions laud their heroes to the skies, the bible tells both the good and the bad things about them which is another thing that makes it different and I believe helps to confirm its authenticity.

So I think the myths and legends that occur in the bible and which echo stories that appear also in other ancient literature, are still believed and accepted because they are an integral part of the bible and though possibly allegorical, endure because they contain truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by simon

Actually Sub Zeus' is the largest most powerful god, and being the oldest that makes him the powerfullest.

---

No. He's not the oldest. All of the Titans, plus some other gods (Aphrodite in some versions, Thanatos, the Graces, or the Furies/Eumenides), and ALL of his brothers (he's the youngest) are older than him. He's simply the most powerful one because it was meant to be so. All of the gods were meant to be surpassed by one of their offsprings, that's why they tried to eat/ kill them, in order to prevent this. Just as Cronus was meant to overpower his father Uranus, so was Zeus regarding Cronus. In Zeus's case, Athena is the one meant to overshadow him, but since she sprang from his head (she had no mother to give birth to her), she had no desire to dethrone him. She owed her life to him.

Your right Crisaor, sorry, Zeus is the most powerful becuaese he was deemed to be, fated to, and after having userped the oldest gods, he was able to keep the throne by either keeping his sisters unmarried, marrying them himself, and deabling his brothers. But I think that some of his power comes from his begin older than the other gods and that gives him more power over them.

I believe that the chrisitain view has a wider appeal and that also can account for it's longevity. In Greek Myhology people were at the mercy of the Greek gods, a persons fate could be determined in a blink of an eye at the whim of a God. To an extent in Christianity your are in charge of your own destiny, how you live your life determines your fate.

Now that I'm thinking about it ancient Greeks were looking for reasons for the sun coming up each day or why it rained when it did, the greek mythologies fit the bill. It was the will of the gods, or somebody made an offering. Presently we have science to tell us why these things happen, we don't believe in the greek gods anymore because they were disproven, humanity out grew the need. Can it be that Christianity survived because humanity is still looking for the bigger cosmic answers that science can't prove? If we are to believe in God today we have to accept (think of them as truth or metaphor) the stories in the bible since they ar bound together (at least in the the 3 biggies).

I think i just confused myself.

correction, one does not have to accept the bible to believe in god. god is not owned by the bible, or for that matter a particular religion.

Amuse - but we are talking here about the bible in relation to the 'myths' within it and why they are still accepted and believed by Christians today. The bible of course does not have a monopoly on god and other religions have their own gods, but the bible is central to the question that Iwillkiku is asking - why are the myths within it considered acceptable when they have been disregarded in other spheres.

I agree with you Papayahead, that man still needs something greater than science to explain the reason for his existence. I think it's because we are mind, body and spirit..and though science has the answers for lots of things - and theories for others, it can't fulfill the spiritual hunger that most of us have, though sometimes don't recognise and try to satisfy with other things. The ancient myths are as you say, inextricably bound up in the bible and though ancient they still have relevance today, through their metaphors.

yes, i'm aware of that miranda. i was simply replying to a statement of papayahed's. not sure why that needs to be clarified.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IWilKikU

Just because people are willing to die for somthing doesn't make it true.

---

I know what you mean, the thing is I see yhis pattern from most of holy texts, though I havent really know these texts precisely, but i know many stories in these texts which are perhaps more imposiblle to happen that those written in the bible (this is purely my subjective opinion, cause i do consider those stories are like imaginary stuffs). But still ..people (the believers) giving up their lives, possesions, wealth, family, etc. The"faith" factor pkays an important role here.
Somehow this becomes a strong fundamental for some people to belief that the bible, or Quran etc, are not just Myth. But of course, this is something subjective.

I understand what you're saying, but I think you've got it backwards. People die for something BECAUSE they believe in it. They don't believe in it BECAUSE someone's willing to die for it.

Papyahead, The Greek Gods were disproven? Who disproved them? Who proved them in the first place, making them disprovable? It can be said the the existence of the Christian God has been disproved by Smith's book Atheism: The Case Against God, but good Christian boys and girls still believe in him. What's you're ground for the old Gods being disproven?

Miranda, thanks for taking a long time to think about this question. I think that you're arguements have made the strongest case for Biblical mythology's authenticity.

"disproven" probably isn't the correct word, Obsolete is closer to what I'm thinking. My original arguement still applies.

The gods of the greeks were pretty much concerned with natural everyday occurances. I could be mistaken but I don't think the "soul" or "spirituality" was ever any issue for the greek gods whereas its one of the main themes of the Christian religion (and I'm only mentioning this one becasue I'm familiar).

I have a question. Are we talking about the myths in the Bible or the myths in the Old Testament?

:) good question. though from what i remember from before dropping out of sunday school, the old testament is part of the bible. it precedes the new testament, as it were. ;)

lol, I knew that :) but it seems like everyone had been discussing the Old Testament only, not the whole Bible. :D

I`m really sorry that I don`t bother to read everything you people have written here so I just say my own opinion on it and hope that exactly the same things hasn`t been said already.

I personally concider the bible to be a nice piece of reading, basically fiction. It`s as believeable as greek, egyptian or estonian myths. See, we have an epic Kalevipoeg and it is not so believeable piece of writing, so are the stories of the flood and noah`s ark. I believe that there might have been some events like that long time ago but if there were then they had nothing to do with god or miracles as the bible claims.
I`m sorry if I have offended somebody, I hope you don`t take it so seriously, it is only my opinion:)

But it is peculiar that people truly believe in the myths depicted in the bible....B´ut one has to believe in something. The people of Ancient Greek truly believed their myths. I think it`s just the mentality of our time, maybe a thnousand years later people think that where could they find a fool who would believe in such nonsense written in the bible.

There is a profound difference between the God of the bible and the mythological deities of other ancient religions. I think it is very interesting the apparent contrasts made between the God of the New Testament and the God of the Old Testament. While the OT does show a great deal of Gods wrath and his strict call to obedience, and the NT clearly shows a more merciful, compassionate, and forgiving God, they are not mutually exclusive. Gods Mercy and forgiveness are made plain in the OT as well as the NT. Some of the most beautiful examples of God's love and mercy are presented in the psalms of the OT. We also must not forget that Christ was not entirely passive either. he overturned tables at the church and took a whip to the vendors. He also caused the fig tree to wither simply because they were out of season. I think there is good reason that the bible is structure the way that it is. In the begining we are made aware that we are to be son's of God, and with this great honor comes responsibility, and this responsibility has consequenses for disobedience. "The fear of the Lord is the begining of knowledge"(Proverbs 1:7), However it is not the sum of all knowledge or the end of knowledge. To know God is to know your good and perfect father, strict when neccessary and steadfast in discipline, having high expectations for his children, yet full of love and all that love brings,(mercy, forgiveness, hope, compasion, etc.), for his child.
We must also remember that our physical existance is not the sum of our life, while the body dies, the spirit is eternal, with this in mind, death is not nearly as brutal as some believe, but mearly a form of transition toward a greater being. For those who belive that this life is all that we have, death most seam quite a horror, but as a believer in the Most High, I am confident that my death will be a passage into a glorious everlasting life free of the burdon of worldly temptations and evil. In this light there is no evil in the great catastrophies such as the flood, but merely a process of the development of a perfect knowledge of God and mans purpose and place in the universe. For as Job says "What is man that you make so much of him; that you give him so much attention"(Job 7:17) and "Does not man have hard service on earth?; Are not his days like those of a hired hand?" Learning is a process that requires us to move outside what makes us comfortable, it requires that we experience sensations that are not always pleasant. How many of us learned not to touch a hot stove by that first experience of being burned. It is not always easy to see the good that will come from the suffering we experience on earth, but considering how short our lives are relative to eternity, is it really such a great price for understanding, and a place in an everlasting kingdom of The Most Royal of Families.

IWilKikU:

The decline of ancient Babylonian, Canaanite, Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Norse and Germanic mythologies may be attributable to their failure to meet an important human need: the desire for a good afterlife. Both the Jewish and Christian faiths spoke of an afterlife that was not dependant on the moral achievements of men and women but on the grace of God. In the Christian faith, that promise of a good afterlife became a virtual guarantee upon the exercise of faith.

The presence of myth in any religion has never been a problem for intellectuals. Myth is a fictional attempt to communicate certain universal truths, usually about the origins of certain ideas, individuals or institutions. It describes the human condition as it is or could be. Myth is not history. History is the description of what actually happened.

Both myth and history are literary forms and vehicles of truth. Both involve the correspondence test of truth. With myth, the application is through the question: does what is presented accurately describe the human condition? Only the most ignorant of fundamentalist interpreters would confuse the image with its reference. When they do so, they commit the logical fallacy of confusing a metaphor with a truth. With history, the application is through the question: does what is presented accurately describe what happened?

A sovereign God is capable of using any literary form to communicate truth.

In my opinion, The Book of Job is a very good example of the literary form of myth or parable being used to present certain truths. You might check out http://www.bookofjob.org and especially the button "A Philosophical Analysis" to understand how an intellectual might use draw truth out of myth.

Dear Robert,
To get back to the original question:

'Does anyone think it's odd that all of the followers of the great mythologies (Greek, Roman, Norse, Egyptian, ect...) gave up their beliefs in these stories that they've been raised to believe in, but we still cling so tightly to Hebrew Mythology? These stories that we have from the Bible, -The Flood, Creation, The Tower of Babel, The Gospel- they basically are all just mythological stories that we have no evidence for except for the Bible itself. If someone found some ancient texts telling the story of Zues, we wouldn't cannonize it and reistate the ancient Greek religions. Why then do we put so much stock in the Bible and its' stories?'

Many believers, in fact I would dare to say most, accept the flood, creation etc as the literal truth. IWilkiku, is asking why, when most of these type of stories outside of Christianity, are regarded as myth. I agree with you that they persist because they carry a truth, but this does not explain why many people accept them as literal and not allegorical. You say this 'Only the most ignorant of fundamentalist interpreters would confuse the image with its reference.' I think this is a bit highhanded cos it really means that all these people believe as they do out of ignorance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robert Sutherla

The decline of ancient Babylonian, Canaanite, Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Norse and Germanic mythologies may be attributable to their failure to meet an important human need: the desire for a good afterlife. Both the Jewish and Christian faiths spoke of an afterlife that was not dependant on the moral achievements of men and women but on the grace of God. In the Christian faith, that promise of a good afterlife became a virtual guarantee upon the exercise of faith.

---

I disagree with this. Greek and Norse mythology had the best afterlife their followers could desire. For greeks, it meant green fields, silver creeks, and peaceful settings (i.e. Arcadia). For scandinavians, it meant an eternal (after)life devoted to the glory of battle and the honor to share meals and home with the All-father in Valhalla. Of course, these things weren't available to everyone, just to the ones who earned it, but that's not different from judaism or christianity. Also, these last ones do not offer a pleasant afterlife based solely on the grace of God. If you didn't do good deeds, you won't get the goodies of heaven, that's part of the point.

Crisaor:

I don't think that's an accurate representation of Greek, Roman and Norse religions.

You correct note that a parasidal existence is available for a limited few.

But you ignore Homer's and Virgil's accounts of hades and tartarus: a shadowy existence of unquenched desire at best (hades) and a place of painful torment at worst (tartarus).

And you ignore Ragnorak, the destruction of all things including Valhalla, which reduces any afterlife for the few to a temporary thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robert Sutherla

Crisaor:
But you ignore Homer's and Virgil's accounts of hades and tartarus: a shadowy existence of unquenched desire at best (hades) and a place of painful torment at worst (tartarus).

---

I don't. You mentioned the good side of the jewish/christian ethos, I mentioned the good one about greek and norse mythos. There is a jewish/christian hell you know...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robert Sutherla

And you ignore Ragnorak, the destruction of all things including Valhalla, which reduces any afterlife for the few to a temporary thing.

---

I don't. Or, in any case, I do, just as you ignored the Apocalypse. But just as the just will be separated from the wicked and live in the grace of God after the Apocalypse, the surviving gods and the offsprings of Lif and Lifthrasir will live forever happily in a new world free of evil under the rule of resurrected Balder. So, IMO, there is no meaningful difference between these religions in this subject.